Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Another Alternate timeline
Published on October 21, 2004 By Dr Guy In Current Events
After Myrannder's excellant post on his reasons for voting Kerry, and his reservations, I was struck by one particular comment he made. Or actually that he attributed to Kerry. SO I would like anyone interested to answer this purely hypothetical question.

For the record, I doubt that we will ever get this finite an answer, but for this hypothetical, here are the facts:

Medical Science has finally answered the question about when life begins. They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved, and have determined, beyond any doubt, that life begins at conception.

For those who now support abortion, would this revelation have any impact on your views of abortion?

I am mostly interested in those who support abortion, and believe that life begins at birth.

Any takers?

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 21, 2004
If life begins at conception then over 60% percent of us 'die' before we are born. That's a fact, not a hypothetical. Kinda throws a wrench into the equation, eh?

Cheers,
Dave
on Oct 21, 2004
As I said, it is a hypothetical, and no it does not. People die all the time. SO the question remains. If Life begins at conception, does that change your view of abortion?

Simple question. We can debate the other issues at another time.
on Oct 28, 2004
I'll be your huckleberry, and be honest to boot. I am Pro-Choice (or Pro-Death as some of the nastier people like to say), and I can honestly say that if there was scientific proof that life begins at conception that I would have to rethink my views on abortion.
on Oct 28, 2004
I am pro-choice. Regardless of when life begins, I believe that it is a woman’s right to have that choice. It is the right of the mother not to bear an unwanted child. How dare the state force someone to bear a child? And how dare anyone judge them?

Even if it were conclusively proved that life began at conception, I still think that women should have that choice. For two reasons:

1. The life of a person is worth more to me.
2. Because over 500 women die every day through botched, backstreet abortions, which they feel forced into as they have no other choice - they cannot afford or access legal abortion. Countless others damage themselves.

If people were truly "pro-life", they'd think about the women as well as the children.

No one rushes to abortion, it's a difficult and heartfelt decision. But it is a fact of life, and has been since the year dot, because no contraceptive is 100% reliable and abstaining is a time limited solution. The best way to reduce the need for abortion is to educate people to practice safe sex, provide them with free contraception, and ensure econoomic equality so that women on their own can afford to have children if that is their wish.

There was a case in Ireland in 1992 called the X case. Abortion is illegal in Ireland. A 12 year old girl was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant. Her natural father tried to take the suicidal girl to England to have an abortion, and a massive court case erupted – in the eyes of the law, the life of the foetus was seen to be more important than the life of the person bearing it. The Irish Supreme Court rightly decided that this was contrary to human rights, and agreed to allow abortion in this circumstance, when the mother’s life was deemed at risk.
on Oct 28, 2004
If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.
on Oct 28, 2004
I am pro-choice. Regardless of when life begins, I believe that it is a woman’s right to have that choice. It is the right of the mother not to bear an unwanted child. How dare the state force someone to bear a child? And how dare anyone judge them?


Does that mean that a mother should have the right to kill her child even after it's born?
on Oct 28, 2004
If people were truly "pro-life", they'd think about the women as well as the children.


If the pregnancy's going to put the woman's life in jeopardy, then it makes sense to allow for abortion then. However, to allow abortion just because the woman will do it herself if not legal is like blaming the government for placing the murderer's life in jeopardy by not facilitating the murderer's act.
on Oct 28, 2004
If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.


It would definitely change some things. Then again though, even when fetuses have brain activity, people don't consider them to be living beings but just a blob of cells, which is why abortion is still legal then.
on Oct 28, 2004
Brain activity vs. cognisence, MB.
on Oct 28, 2004
Do people in comas (or slumber) have cognizance in such states? If not, are they considered no longer human beings?
How do we find when fetuses gain it anyway? I think it'd be easier (and clearer) to define life right when brain activity appears. With it, one's alive. Without it, one's usually considered dead.
on Oct 28, 2004
If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.


Are you aware of the manner in which a fetus develops?


By week 10 the fetus has developed a nervous system. Week 5 is about as late as you can go in claiming that it is a "blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain."



That's at 8 weeks right there. I'm not pushing a prolife agenda here, I'm just trying to share some established facts with you guys. So, there you have them, do with them what you wish.
Link
on Oct 28, 2004
"They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved"

Nothing about a fetus. Let me reitterate that the initial post says just been concieved. At conception, I believe there is no argument that it is a blob of undeliniated cells.

Buu, if we define human life as starting at the first signs of brain activity, then what seperates us from mice and rodents? They have brain function as well. Why is it ok to kill them?
on Oct 28, 2004
"They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved"

Nothing about a fetus. Let me reitterate that the initial post says just been concieved. At conception, I believe there is no argument that it is a blob of undeliniated cells.


Dude . . . you were just discussing this:

If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.


vs.

Do people in comas (or slumber) have cognizance in such states? If not, are they considered no longer human beings?
How do we find when fetuses gain it anyway? I think it'd be easier (and clearer) to define life right when brain activity appears. With it, one's alive. Without it, one's usually considered dead.


I didn't take this thread off track . . . what I posted was in keeping with the current discussion. When you guys talk about brain activity, you are discussing a fetus. You've moved far past a "blob of undeliniated cells" by that point. Even in your last post you say:

Buu, if we define human life as starting at the first signs of brain activity, then what seperates us from mice and rodents? They have brain function as well. Why is it ok to kill them?


But whatever. *shrugs*

on Oct 28, 2004
"They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved"

Distinct unique thoughts, as far as I know, are generally associated with brain activity. I don't see how you could possibly concider the issue of brain activity off topic.

If you really want to talk about off topic, how about this argument about whether or not we are on topic?
on Oct 28, 2004
I don't consider it off topic, but I was a bit put off by your "nothing about a fetus" comment . . . I took it to mean that you had dismissed my contribution because you didn't consider it applicable to the discussion, and of course I would not have wasted my time posting it if I didn't feel it would add something to the debate.

If you really want to talk about off topic, how about this argument about whether or not we are on topic?


Wanna talk about sparkly purple unicorns with me?
3 Pages1 2 3